Over the past few weeks, Ive written a series of columns about some of the myths perpetuated by the gun lobby. One on the claims made about the cosmetic features of assault rifles, another about the idea of the Second Amendment as a self-destruct mechanism.

This time, Im focusing on the biggest myth of them all: that the government is coming for our guns.

This is simply not true.

At this time, no serious person is suggesting confiscation as a viable solution to the gun violence problem. I mean it. Anyone who honestly believes, or even suggests, that it would be right, feasible or a good idea to take legally owned guns away from law abiding citizens is kidding themselves.

The government is not coming for the peoples guns. Legally, it never can, thanks to the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, which guarantee an individual right to bear arms.

These cases really should have ended the most immediate fears of a government confiscation program once and for all, but here we are today, still seeing advertisements from the NRA, like one released on February 12 titled Ask Obamas Experts, saying that the presidents gun control proposals would lead to confiscation.

Lets say this is true. The president, or anyone in the government, for that matter, can talk all they want about confiscating firearms, but the fact is that it will never happen. According to D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, they cant even force you to put a trigger-lock on your gun.

This time, Im focusing on the biggest myth of them all: that the government is coming for our guns. This is simply not true.

Several state legislatures have put forward proposals for confiscation laws that they have cleverly disguised by calling them "confiscation laws" in the last three months. This author should stick to playing with yarn balls.

5
posted on 03/09/2013 10:56:39 PM PST
by TigersEye
(The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)

I think, on paper, what he says is true: for political reasons the gun grabbers aren’t going to enact a straight-up gun confiscation law.

I think if you look at the laws they’re seeking to pass, you’ll see a pattern of trying to establish a de facto gun ban: a web of strangling regulations that make it too difficult and expensive for the average citizen to legally own a gun. For them, the beauty of the scheme is that the “elite” people—like Hollywood lefties—will still be able to have armed bodyguards because they’ll have the money and the pull.

For us the effect will be the same, but lumps of fecal matter like this college brat will still claim “hey we didn’t ban guns...”

11
posted on 03/10/2013 1:35:22 AM PST
by hitkicker
(The only thing worse than a politician is a child molester)

At this time, no serious person is suggesting confiscation as a viable solution to the gun violence problem. I mean it.

Whew! I'm glad that's finally been crossed off the list of things to be concerned about. Now that we know the feral government has no interest in confiscating our guns, I'm sure we won't have to listen to any more gibberish about so-called "gun control," will we?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.